Talk:F-1 (rocket engine)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The thrust from a single F-1 is simply amazing

The article states how one F-1 has more thrust that three SSMEs. However, I noticed a while back something else that was stunning. Each F-1 has more thrust than ALL of the rockets and thrusters in a Saturn V/Apollo J combined (aside from the other F-1s). Even if you include all of the ullage thrusters, manuvuering thrusters, Launch Vehicle Escape System thrusters, retro rockets, etc; a single F-1 still has more thrust. That is one strong engine.--Will 04:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turbopump performance swimming pool analogy

This is further explanation of my rv of the removal of the "time to fill/drain a swimming pool" as an illustration of F-1 turbopump flow rate. This is a common illustration used in many popular-level sources (including the official Pratt & Whitney / Rocketdyne web site: [1]) for illustrating the extreme propellant flow rates of large rocket engines. There's nothing "drivel" about it, rather it's an easy-to-understand illustration that's appropriate and approachable for the common readership of a general encyclopedia. The same illustration has been used for decades in various educational books, programs and literature on the space program. Joema 18:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • First of all, let me apologise for the word "drivel". That was thoughless and inconsiderate. This comparison however is clearly non-encyclopaedic for the following reasons:
    • It's confusing. One "backyard swimming pool" might be very much different to another (mine is 36,000 litres, less than a 3rd of the 114,000 litre pool that you have).
    • There are very well established SI units, which everyone understands and are unambiguous. 14,000 litres per second cannot be misunderstood, whereas 1 swimming pool per 10 seconds is cumbersome and almost meaningless. (Why do you think we don't measure things in cubits anymore?)
    • The figures are wrong anyway. 114,000 gallons is more like 513,000 litres.
    • Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, not an advertising forum. It should contain material that informs not words designed to be populist. Dontdoit 02:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Revised swimming pool flow rate analogy slightly. The figures were very accurate. BTW, 114,000 U.S. gallons is 431,537 liters. You can easily do unit conversions directly from the Google query window using the IN keyword. E.g: "7.6 million pounds force IN newtons". It understands many different measurement units.
Let me re-emphasize: the swimming pool flow rate illustration is a long standing, historic illustration used in many educational materials over the past 40 years. Here are some examples:
* http://www.californiasciencecenter.org/Exhibits/AirAndSpace/HumansInSpace/SaturnVLOXvalve/SaturnVLOXvalve.php
* http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/26sept_goosebumps.htm
* http://www.nasa.gov/centers/stennis/pdf/149892main_OASIS%20Spring%202005.pdf
* http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/augustine/racfup3.htm
* http://marshallstar.msfc.nasa.gov/3-28-02.pdf
* http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/propul/SSMEamaz.html
* http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/factoids/funfacts.htm
* http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/051019_ipd.html Joema 03:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, you were talking about US gallons --- as the text didn't specify, I assumed it referred to imperial ones. If you must include this figure, then please explicitly state US gallons otherwise it's just confusing. In general I would stick to SI units as they're universal and cause no confusion. You've really missed the point about swimming pools ; simply because a term is in widespread use, doesn't make it encyclopaedic. This article is a technical one, and should use technical language. Dontdoit
OK, specified US gallons. Re swimming pool illustration, I'm afraid you're off-base on that. Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible says writing should "presented in the most widely accessible manner possible". Wikipedia:What is a good article? says wording should be: "readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers". Using simplifying illustrations helps achieve that, especially if involving quantities or magnitudes the reader can't easily visualize.
The topic may be technical in nature, but Wikipedia style guidelines emphasize making it accessible to the average reader. You likely wouldn't use such an illustration in a narrow-interest, peer-reviewed academic research paper. But Wikipedia is a popular-level encyclopedia. That is exactly why other educational materials about the same topic use similar illustrations. "The History of Manned Space Flight", by David Baker (ISBN: 051754377X) is one of the most encyclopedic, detailed technical histories ever published. Yet even it uses simplifying illustrations about the Saturn V propellant flow rate. In this case it says the SI-C first stage in 2.5 minutes consumes "more propellant that would be consumed by an average motorist in more than 1,000 years of normal driving" (page 294). Joema 19:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
You're really not being realistic here. Do you really think that there is anyone in the world who can read English to this level, yet does not know what a litre is? --- or not familiar with decimal counting? Even if there exists anyone who can only visualise capacities in terms of swimming pools, it would be simple for this hypothetical individual to refer to swimming pool, to compare his/her standard measure in terms of litres. We cannot cater for every 1 in a million individual, who has an non-conventional way of measuring fluid capacity --- I mean we'd have to say something like "the F1 engine in 10 seconds, consumes 1 backyard swimming pool, 1/10 of an olympic pool, 1/1000 of a ULCC, 1000,000 chamber pots, 1000,000,000 thimbles" --- it'd be just silly.
As you like to refer to WP guidelines, here are some which you really should familiarise yourself with: 1) WP:MOS says: "For units of measure, use SI units as the main units in science articles, unless there are compelling historical or pragmatic reasons not to do so" --- I can't see any compelling reason to express the flow rate of rocket engines in terms of swimming pools --- (note that the editors of swimming pools discuss that subject's size, but don't mention rocket engines even once). 2) Your assumption that all readers of this article have little or no education is a gross violation of WP:CIVIL. 3) Most notably, your point of view just ignores WP:UCS. Dontdoit 00:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The swimming pool illustration doesn't displace any SI unit measurements in this article -- it's simply an additional illustration to help readers visualize the huge propellant flow rate. This is why so many other educational sources use similar illustrations to help visualize huge magnitudes or quantities. E.g, when discussing the flow rate of Hoover Dam, the PBS Educational Series "Building Big" says Hoover Dam's water flow would fill 15 average-size swimming pools in one second. These are merely illustrations to help the reader visualize the quantities/scales involved.
I'm totally stumped by your point #2. Nowhere did I state "all readers of this article have little or no education". Good teaching technique from ancient times has involved use of clarifying illustrations. That's why the swimming pool illustration has been frequently used by other writers, and why even David Baker, Phd (a British technical writer famous for his extreme precision and detail) used the "1,000 year automobile fuel consumption" illustration to help readers visualize Saturn V propellant usage, in his huge encyclopedic History of Manned Space Flight. The swimming pool illustration of propellant flow is appropriate and fitting for an encyclopedia targeted at broad readability. Joema 03:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
You really don't seem to want to be persauded, so I'm not going to prolong this discussion any further. I just ask you to consider these points:
* Does this comparison add anything (information, clarity or readability) to the article?
* Other instances of people using journalese doesn't mean that you have to do likewise.
* Is it really worth cluttering the article, for the sake of the 1 in 10,000 readers whose normal measure of capactity is swimming pools?
--- If after objectively considering these points you still want this comparison, then perhaps you might want to add an entry to the Simple English Wikipedia. But please make this article factual, to the point, informative and clear. Dontdoit 01:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd weigh in. I think there *is* a historical justification for the use of the swimming pool illustration... namely, that it was a frequently used illustration at the time. If you really want to justify it in the text of the article, you can say something like "Rocketdyne promotional material boasted that the F-1 could empty a swimming pool in (however many) seconds." That contextualises the statement and makes it clear that it's not something that the Wikipedia editor just made up. MLilburne 10:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heat resistance

How does this rocket's nozzle and combustion chamber keep from disintegrating under that amount of massive heat and energy? -Rolypolyman (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Regenerative cooling- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)